Steineded How sad is this?

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Bezenby From the director of White Zombie! I thought this one would be more of the same, and was all jazzed up by the opening sequence, where a bunch of Cambodian zombies take a trench from the Bosch during World War One. Ah, I thought, this is going to be a good one, what with the zombies and the war and the intrigue and the murder of the zombie master. How could it fail? Well, how about bringing the whole film to a crashing halt by introducing a boring love triangle? That's what they do here, and I swear I had trouble distinguishing the two guys and who was being made to be jealous by the other guy and who ended up with the girl. I was nodding off at this bit. Seems they've all headed out to Cambodia to find out the zombie ritual for some reason, but you get little of that and loads of this trio standing around talking about relationships. And no zombies.Seems like the jealous guy's gone a bit whacko too, as he heads out on his own to a temple and follows a zombie in a scene which did make me laugh. In order to cut costs, it looks like the actors are just acting in front of photographs and projected images of the temple (and a swamp). When our jilted guy is following a zombie through the swamp, he's merely walking on the spot with added watery noises. That was funny at least, but still, it's the only entertainment I managed to get from the remainder of the film.Our jilted guy get's the zombie ritual and starts zombifying everybody (and I mean everybody) in order to get his girl back, but by this point, you won't be caring. Let me point out here that the zombies only actually do any damage when they're not zombies anymore – that's how crap this one is! This film was a real let down (especially if you've already watched White Zombie)…You might get some cheese kicks from the cheapness of it, but it's a cheat anyway.

JoeB131 This was the second attempt by the Halperin brothers to make a Zombie film, which they did this time without elements like Bela Lugosi or a coherent plot.The plot is that a Cambodian mystic (Cambodia being an exotic land back in the 1930's) finds a way to turn Colonial troops into Zombies who are so terrifying on the battlefield that the allies decide they need to make sure that they are never used again. (Funny, I thought the point of the war was to win the war!) A multi-national expedition goes to the ruins of Angkor Wat to find the Zombie formula, not realizing that, hey, maybe something wiped out the Angkor civilization. That would have made an interesting plot, but it got lost in bad editing, bad filming and bad film preservation. The characters in this film are largely interchangeable, as the leading lady shows when she hops from one to the other.Apparently, there is a part where the "Hero" zombifies the whole population of Pneom Pehn, until he releases them all and they kill him.Keep in mind, these are pre-Romero zombies, who could just be scary by standing around. They didn't actually need to eat anyone, the slackers.

John W Chance This is not really a zombie film, if we're defining zombies as the dead walking around. Here the protagonist, Armand Louque (played by an unbelievably young Dean Jagger), gains control of a method to create zombies, though in fact, his 'method' is to mentally project his thoughts and control other living people's minds turning them into hypnotized slaves. This is an interesting concept for a movie, and was done much more effectively by Fritz Lang in his series of 'Dr. Mabuse' films, including 'Dr. Mabuse the Gambler' (1922) and 'The Testament of Dr. Mabuse' (1933). Here it is unfortunately subordinated to his quest to regain the love of his former fiancée, Claire Duvall (played by the Anne Heche look alike with a bad hairdo, Dorothy Stone) which is really the major theme.The movie has an intriguing beginning, as Louque is sent on a military archaeological expedition to Cambodia to end the cult of zombies that came from there. At some type of compound (where we get great 30s sets and clothes) he announces his engagement to Claire, and then barely five minutes later, she gives him back his ring declaring her love for his pal, Clifford Greyson (Robert Noland). It's unintentionally funny the way they talk to each other without making eye contact. This would have been a great movie for 'Mystery Science Theater 3000', if they hadn't already roasted it.It's never shown how Louque actually learns the 'zombification' secret, but he then uses it to kill his enemies, create a giant army of rifle carrying soldiers and body guards. We won't see such sheer force of will until John Agar in 'The Brain From Planet Arous' (1957).Finally Claire consents to marry him if he will let Greyson live and return to America. Louque agrees, but actually turns him into one of his hypnotized slaves. On their wedding night he realizes that Claire will only begin to love him if he gives up his 'powers.' To gain her love, he does so, causing the 'revolt' of the title, in which all his slaves awaken and attack his compound and kill him. Greyson embraces Claire, and we seem to be at the end of a parable: "Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad." So really then, it's not that bad of a film, despite the low IMDb rating it currently has. On repeated viewings (?) one can see the artistry in the well formed script! Dean Jagger had yet to develop into a good actor, and is almost unrecognizable in his youngness -- is that really his own hair? We remember him more for his bald, old man roles in 'White Christmas' (1954), 'X The Unknown' (1956) and 'King Creole' (1958). The story borrows a lot of its basic themes from the Halperin brothers better, earlier film 'White Zombie' (1932) in which hapless Robert Frazier (as Charles Beaumont) uses 'zombification' to win the love of Madge Bellamy (as Madeline Parker).If you want real zombie movies (of which there are hundreds!) I'd start with 'White Zombie' (1932), 'King of the Zombies' (1941), 'I Walked with a Zombie' (1943), 'Night of the Living Dead' (1968), 'The Last Man on Earth' (1964) and its two remakes. In the modern era of classy films, there are 'Horror Express' (1972), 'The Serpent and the Rainbow' (1988), '28 Days Later' (2002) and its sequel, as well as many, many, others too numerous to mention.This one is not really a zombie film. Judging this movie on its own terms, it's more of a semi-Gothic romance. As such it ranks a little below some of Universal's bottom billed B horror movies of the late 30s and early 40s. So I'll give it a 5.

winner55 Of the many problems with this film, the worst is continuity; and re-editing it on VHS for a college cable channel many years ago, I tried to figure out what exactly went wrong. What seems to have happened is that they actually constructed a much longer film and then chopped it down for standard theatrical viewing. How much longer? to fill in all the holes in the plot as we have it would require about three more hours of narrative and character development - especially given the fact that the film we do have is just so slow and takes itself just so seriously.That's staggering; what could the Halperins have possibly been trying to accomplish here? Their previous film, "White Zombie", was a successful low budget attempt to duplicate the early Universal Studios monster films (The Mummy, Dracula, etc.), and as such stuck pretty close to the zombie mythology that those in North America would know from popular magazines.Revolt of the Zombies, to the contrary, appears to have been intended as some allegory for the politics of modern war. This would not only explain the opening, and the change of Dean Jagger's character into a megalomaniac, but it also explains why the zombies don't actually do much in the film, besides stand around, look frightening, and wait for orders - they're just allegorical soldiers, not the undead cannibals we've all come to love and loathe in zombie films.I am the equal to any in my dislike for modern war and its politics - but I think a film ought to be entertaining first, and only later, maybe, educational. And definitely - a film about zombies ought to be about zombies.Truly one of the most bizarre films in Hollywood history, but not one I can recommend, even for historic value.